Hi all: I have performed an Operations Directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-extended-admin-group-06 "MPLS-TE advertises 32 administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link colors") using the Administrative Group sub-TLV of the Link TLV. This is defined for OSPFv2 (RFC3630), OSPFv3 (RFC5329) and ISIS (RFC5305). This document adds a sub-TLV to the IGP TE extensions, "Extended Administrative Group". This sub-TLV provides for additional administrative groups (link colors) beyond the current limit of 32." - - - - 1. Is the specification complete? Can multiple interoperable implementations be built based on the specification? Yes. 2. Is the proposed specification deployable? If not, how could it be improved? Yes. It includes clear comments about transitioning from the current AG TLV (Admin Group, max 32 'colours') to the proposed EAG (Extended Admin Group, no limit to the number of 'colours'). 3. Does the proposed approach have any scaling issues that could affect usability for large scale operation? No. The size of an EAG TLV is only limited by factors such as restrictions on TLV size or link MTU. 4. Are there any backward compatibility issues? Section 2.3.1 covers AG and EAG coexistence. I was puzzled by the paragraphs in 2.3.1 that says "If both an AG and EAG are present, a receiving node MUST use the AG as the first 32 bits (0-31) of administrative color and use the EAG for bits 32 and higher if present." Since the first 32 bits of an EAG should be the same as the first 32 bits of an AG, why not change over now, and use the first 32 bits of the EAG? 5. Do you anticipate any manageability issues with the specification? Operators who wish to use EAGs will need to update their management system to a new version that implements them, but that should be a normal system upgrade across their whole network. 6. Does the specification introduce new potential security risks or avenues for fraud? This proposal adds a new TLV into MPLS LSAs; it's Security Considerations section says that "adds no new security considerations;" that seems reasonable. A few typos: p3: s/restrictions, allow for/restrictions, allowing for/ p5: a/assumption is than an/assumption is that an/ p6: s/caled/called/ Cheers, Nevil Co-chair, IPFIX and EMAN WGs -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand